After declaring certain Christian defenders of Israel to be “warmongers,” arguing we could not defeat the Islamic State without being an air force for Iran, opining we didn’t have a national security interest in Syria or Iraq, accusing interventionists of abetting the Islamic State’s rise and decrying Hillary Clinton as too hawkish, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has decided that if you can’t beat the “neocons” he might as well join them. He told the Associated Press: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.” Well, welcome aboard, Sen. Paul. And thank goodness he has dropped his prior indefensible positions.

There are a few questions about Paul’s remarkable metamorphosis, which follows increasingly vocal criticism from potential opponents such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry (does he owe Perry an apology since he has now adopted some of the same views?) and conservative policy wonks. I asked his longtime adviser Doug Stafford a few of the questions that come to mind:

Has Paul changed his view of the Middle East since his Wall Street Journal pieces?

(More at above link)
-----------------------------------------------
There's your anti-war GOP candidate for you. As I have said repeatedly, any position he has that is supposedly 'progressive' is likely to be thrown under the bus at the first sign of pushback by his own party.

As the story goes, President Obama or the Department of Justice (depending on which source you are looking at) have filed court documents granting the Bush administration immunity for war crimes. Looking closely at the case in question and reading through the court documents which are cited as sources for these stories, it becomes clear that the headlines on this are, at best, misleading.

The Case
Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi mother and citizen, who was residing in the country at the time of the US invasion filed suit on March 13, 2012, in California District Court. Filed as a “Complaint For Conspiracy To Commit Aggression and The Crime Of Aggression” Saleh’s suit alleges that the Bush administration plotted against the country of Iraq and that top members of the administration used the September 11th attacks to justify an invasion which had been planned as early as 1998. She also claims that the administration falsified information to justify the war and further, that they illegally invaded the country, without UN approval, in violation of international law. The suit cites additional violations of the Rule of Nuremberg and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a Treaty signed by the US in 1928.

.
.
.

President Obama Grants Immunity To Bush Administration?

No.

In response to the suit US attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss. This motion to dismiss cites the Westfall Act, which actually has nothing to do with Obama granting George Bush or his administration immunity from anything, since it was first put in place in 1948 and updated in 1961, 1966 and 1988. This law provides that any government employee who was acting as an agent of the US at the time a crime is committed, is immune from suits of the nature. It also requires that the United States government be named in place of any individual employee of the government. In the Motion, attorneys for the US government clearly state that in order for the suit to be legal, the United States government must be named as the defendant.

.
.
.

Other Reasons for the Motion to Dismiss
Aside from the fact that under long standing United States law, the individuals listed cannot be named in the suit, other legal issues mentioned in the Motion to Dismiss include the question of whether California District Court has jurisdiction in such a case and a question of whether the plaintiff’s attorney followed the correct procedure, exhausting all other remedies available, prior to filing the suit.
.
.
.
(more at above link)

The last time Elizabeth Warren was asked about her views on the Israeli attack on Gaza – on July 17 – she, as Rania Khalek put it, “literally ran away” without answering. But last week, the liberal Senator appeared for one of her regularly scheduled “office hours” with her Massachusetts constituents, this one in Hyannis, and, as a local paper reported, she had nowhere to run.

One voter who identified himself as a Warren supporter, John Bangert, stood up and objected to her recent vote, in the middle of the horrific attack on Gaza, to send yet another $225 million of American taxpayer money to Israel for its “Iron Dome” system. Banger told his Senator: “We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel . . . The vote was wrong, I believe.” To crowd applause, Bangert told Warren that the money “could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.”

But Warren steadfastly defended her “pro-Israel” vote, invoking the politician’s platitude: “We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.” According to the account in the Cape Cod Times by reporter C. Ryan Barber, flagged by Zaid Jilani, Warren was also asked about her Israel position by other voters who were at the gathering, and she went on to explain:

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”
.
.
.

This has been posted on DU before around a year or so ago but I think it bears a repost

Everyone should watch this video as it explains some of what we Democrats/Liberals/Progressives say about wealth inequality in this country. Folks born into privilege, as some might say, born on third base, behave as if they hit a triple. And are then mean to those who were born having to hit a single just to make it to first base.

TAMPA — A grandmother accidentally shot and badly injured her 7-year-old grandson early Tuesday, thinking he was an intruder at their Town 'N Country home, authorities said.

The boy, Tyler Maddox, was in critical but stable condition at St. Joseph's Hospital.

The boy and his twin brother, Tyrique, were sleeping in the five-bedroom house at 6505 Alta Monte Drive with their grandmother, Linda Maddox, 63.

She had placed a chair against her bedroom door for security, according to Hillsborough County sheriff's officials. About 1 a.m., she heard the chair moving against the wood floor. Thinking the noise was from an intruder, Linda Maddox retrieved a .22 caliber pistol she keeps near the bed and fired in the darkness toward the door, deputies said.

TAMPA — A grandmother accidentally shot and badly injured her 7-year-old grandson early Tuesday, thinking he was an intruder at their Town 'N Country home, authorities said.

The boy, Tyler Maddox, was in critical but stable condition at St. Joseph's Hospital.

The boy and his twin brother, Tyrique, were sleeping in the five-bedroom house at 6505 Alta Monte Drive with their grandmother, Linda Maddox, 63.

She had placed a chair against her bedroom door for security, according to Hillsborough County sheriff's officials. About 1 a.m., she heard the chair moving against the wood floor. Thinking the noise was from an intruder, Linda Maddox retrieved a .22 caliber pistol she keeps near the bed and fired in the darkness toward the door, deputies said.

The 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery where two suspects wearing body armor and using a car full of armor piercing bullets in AK-47 assault rifles outgunned local law enforcement for a considerable amount of time until S.W.A.T could be brought in. I am not saying I agree or disagree with this incident as justification, just that I seem to remember this is what started police units down the road of requesting higher powered weapons and armor.